Category Archives: Risks: damage, trauma, death

Post navigation

“A while back, I wrote an essay on the ethics of routine male circumcision. During my search for sources in writing this paper, I found very few pro-circumcision sources because so few doctors recommend the procedure today.

Despite that, many Americans are still very much for Routine Infant Circumcision. This is my page outlining both the pro and con arguments for the procedure, followed by a brief on the truth of the situation.”

“[L]ately, more parents than ever are deciding to keep their newborn sons intact—especially on the West Coast. The reasons range from changing recommendations by medical authorities to the growing trend of parents not wanting to blindly follow social norms.”

“The Convention on the Rights of the Child from 1989 states in Article 19 that States “shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violation, injury or abuse…” Article 24.3 urges all States “to take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudical to the health of children”. Article 37 states that “no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment…”.

In the UNICEF Implementation Handbook for the Convention (1998) it is stated in relation to Article 24.3 that a review is to be undertaken regarding “all forms of genital mutilation and circumcision”. Other traditional practices which are to be reviewed include “binding, scarring, burning, branding, forced holding under water…” and similar cruel treatment of children. No doubt it is time to act!

Apparently no such action has been taken and the Convention is not applied in any country as regards circumcision of boys – let alone regarding mutilation of girls ( which is done by the hundreds of thousands every year).”

“I am a 72 year old retired physician, a Jew who is an active member of a Conservative synagogue, and a grandfather.

When I was in Medical School in the 1950s, almost all newborn males were circumcised. Despite the fact that prophylactic surgery was not generally performed, we were taught that circumcision was the correct and healthy thing to do. It was thought to control masturbation, decrease cancer risk, and help curtail sexually transmitted diseases. We learned nothing of foreskin anatomy and function. Infant nervous systems were thought to be undeveloped and their pain was so trivialized that it was almost ignored. As a young physician, I participated in many circumcisions. Over the years I’ve witnessed brit milah in the homes of friends and family. I was mildly uncomfortable with the practice, but like most physicians, and like most Jews, I said and did nothing to question circumcision.”

“A couple from the US state of Georgia was recently arrested for tattooing six of their seven children with crosses. The mother bemusedly commented:

I’m their mother. Shouldn’t I be able to decide if they get one?

No, madam, you shouldn’t. Children are not possessions; parents do not own them. They are human beings with inalienable human rights. To permanently and unnecessarily scar a child without their express and informed consent (and when they are not old enough to comprehend the consequences) is a violation of those rights.”

Blogger Sagacious Mama gives several reasons why she did not circumcise her son. Below is an excerpt from her post. The remaining content can be read at the link that follows.

When an American physician says that circumcision prevents UTI or cancer of the penis, he is sincere. But, it is like a medieval Chinese physician saying that foot binding prevents flat feet. If someone asks me, “What rate of preventable UTI would justify male circumcision?” I respond by asking, “What rate of preventable UTI would justify female circumcision?” The second question is patently absurd unless one’s cultural bias allows a sympathetic view of female circumcision. Therefore, the first question can be only slightly less absurd.